Republican presidential hopefuls listen to the national anthem prior to the start of the Republican presidential debate on national security on November 22. (Getty Images)

(Newser)
–
In the latest Republican debate, we saw the candidates showcase their hawkishness, each trying to play it tougher than the next. (Except for Ron Paul, of course.) That may work in “Republo-world,” where theoretical discussions on, say, bombing Iran, are commonplace, but it won’t play well outside such circles, writes Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. “Should we be discussing those things so blithely and explicitly in such a public way? You have to wonder what the world thinks when it hears such talk—and the world is watching.”

CNN's introduction to the debate set “a weird, hyperventilating tone,” full of explosions and machine guns; the candidates themselves seem to follow suit. “This is a major-party nomination for the presidency, not a trailer for Homeland,” Noonan complains. Does it serve “US interests to have possible presidents in a formal venue pressed on whether they will topple this regime or bomb that sovereign nation”? Indeed, “by the end, Ron Paul seemed like the normal one.” If they don't tone it down, Republicans run the risk of sounding like the "War Party."

Ron Paul is like the crazy old koot, telling the neighbor kids not to play on the R/R tracks.

MichelleMinto

Nov 26, 2011 5:47 PM CST

They are all the war party. Haven't you heard that loving war and foreign occupation is the new "reasonable, mature and sophisticated" understanding of the liberal educated class? It's not just for neocons anymore, war is for everybody!

stlman

Nov 26, 2011 10:09 AM CST

Would someone please tell Newt to pay attention during the National Anthem. He's preoccupied elsewhere. See his eyes.